Soldato
Benjarghmin said:
I think Mr Green is the one who has forced this 'wasting' of legal officials' time. This would have all been very easy had he acted in a more decent and moral manner.
Sent Item To Wrong Address
- Thread starter Hyper
- Start date
- Status
I think Mr Green is the one who has forced this 'wasting' of legal officials' time. This would have all been very easy had he acted in a more decent and moral manner.
I don't think bringing people's age comes into it at all, but then that's just my view. 16-year-olds aren't babies, they're just as capable as any adult.
And I'm not saying we shouldn't prosecute against this, I'm just saying in my personal opinion it's a tad petty to use other people's time to make up for your mistake and your following stubbornness to get an extra £60. Shoot me down all you like, but those are my views
Edit @ Doohickey: He's chosen to act that way, that doesn't mean he has caused the waste of officials time. It would be Hyper, who chose to waste that time
But then again, that's sort of chicken and egg.
And I'm not saying we shouldn't prosecute against this, I'm just saying in my personal opinion it's a tad petty to use other people's time to make up for your mistake and your following stubbornness to get an extra £60. Shoot me down all you like, but those are my views
Edit @ Doohickey: He's chosen to act that way, that doesn't mean he has caused the waste of officials time. It would be Hyper, who chose to waste that time
But then again, that's sort of chicken and egg.
Man of Honour
I think its more the fact that £120 is a lot of cash to most 16yr olds, not the fact that he may or may not be capable of wiping his own arseBenjarghmin said:I don't think bringing people's age comes into it at all, but then that's just my view. 16-year-olds aren't babies, they're just as capable as any adult.
And I'm not saying we shouldn't prosecute against this, I'm just saying in my personal opinion it's a tad petty to use other people's time to make up for your mistake and your following stubbornness to get an extra £60. Shoot me down all you like, but those are my views
Benjarghmin said:It honestly shocks me that people are thinking about prosecuting this guy for theft. Don't you think the court has more important things they should be doing than helping out 16-year-olds who accidentally send things to the wrong address? I do.
It's not the money, it's the principal.
I would want your friend to suffer for his callousness.
The box contained an invoice with Hyper's contact details on, a bloke he dealt with only a week or two earlier, it takes 2mins to call the number and find out what the deal is, there is no such thing as the graphics card fairy.
Last edited:
Plenty of people have been mentioning how the money is worth a lot to a 16-year-old, so I was writing in response to them.
And no, he's not my 'friend', I don't know where he lives, or anything other than the fact his name is Mr. Green. Your presumptions are lame.
And no, he's not my 'friend', I don't know where he lives, or anything other than the fact his name is Mr. Green. Your presumptions are lame.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
Benjarghmin said:
Well, of course. However, Hyper made a mistake- this mistake did not give Mr Green the legal ownership of the item though, as we have established. And thus in selling the card at a car boot sale
he is in fact the one who has committed the offence, so Hyper has every right to 'waste' whoever's time he chooses to.Doohickey said:Well, of course. However, Hyper made a mistake- this mistake did not give Mr Green the legal ownership of the item though, as we have established. And thus in selling the card at a car boot sale
I'm not defending Mr Green. He's in the wrong. It doesn't mean every Average Joe can go whinging to the courts that they messed up and want an extra £60. If everybody did so, I predict the judicial system would be in a bit of a pickle time-wise.
To me, this is just one of those things you deal with. Don't try and correct my opinion, it's not changing. And that's not aimed at anyone specific.
Soldato
Benjarghmin said:
That total rubbish tbh mate, throughout life everyone makes mistakes and with luck you rally round and sort it, Whilst in Business it may be a dog eat dog world, we aren't talking about a business are we, Only society's lowest would hope to profit from the mistake of a 16 year old. Fortunately 99.9% of the population would have no doubt gone out of their way to at least contact the sender to establish the reason. You got very unlucky Hyper matey.
Finally there's every point judging Mr Green based on his actions over this and in my eyes he's scum.
there's a saying though, what goes around comes around and I hope its not long before Mr.G makes his mistake and it to costs him emotionally, financially and time to rectify.
Give it back, you'll feel great and be able to sleep at night...
LOAM
Last edited:
Associate
Explicit kindly replied to my query on theft back in post #215.
If Mr Green honestly believed he had a right to the property, then that would be an appropriate defence to any theft charge. It would appear that he did believe he had a right to the property, having been informed as such by Royal Mail. I am of course assuming that a witness statement from Royal Mail confirming this information would be produced.
Even so, the very fact that Mr Green appeared to immediately contact Royal Mail for clarification demonstrates a guilty mind (at least to my thinking), so that may very well go against him. I'm not sure how such a defence in a theft charge equates with the prinicipal that "ignorance is no defence".
If Mr Green honestly believed he had a right to the property, then that would be an appropriate defence to any theft charge. It would appear that he did believe he had a right to the property, having been informed as such by Royal Mail. I am of course assuming that a witness statement from Royal Mail confirming this information would be produced.
Even so, the very fact that Mr Green appeared to immediately contact Royal Mail for clarification demonstrates a guilty mind (at least to my thinking), so that may very well go against him. I'm not sure how such a defence in a theft charge equates with the prinicipal that "ignorance is no defence".
Last edited:
Gog said:
Unfortunatley I can't comment on the above as i don't know what went through his mind at this time, however from my perspective if i recieve a parcel with no details of who its from i would probably do the same surely this just indicates I was interested in where I stood rather than a guilty mind?
Just thinking about this further - from what i can remember royal mail only keeps details of the tracking number, the adressee part is given to the postee and the return section should be secured on the parcel/written on the envelope - they don't retain any other information apart from the tracking number - as such how do we know he didn't ask this when he called RM, as such there would be no way oof tracking the sender - afterall they have to had look at the address, write the address and recipient - rewrite address and recipient at post office - as i'm sure most will agree this is a hard mistake to make - i will check with him when i see him
Just ensure you put invoices of intended recipient in parcels - and ensure you print/capture the information from the paypal transaction as this will always be correct
bigjohn said:
Surely you mean Mr Green is yet to receive it? Or are you, in fact, Mr Green? You also lied about your registration date on these forums. I know what I think.
bigjohn said:
I do not wish to inform you because you are representing the other party.
There is a specific civil claim that deals with this situation, but I am not going to give you specific details.
bigjohn said:
What do you take me for? You are now asking me to advise your side of the case. As I stated earlier, I am not going prepare your defence for you. In one of your emails, you stated that you are being advised by a solicitor from http://www.cordnerlewis.co.uk/. I don't understand why you are asking me for advice.
bigjohn said:
His father is eligible to bring the claim.
bigjohn said:
Yes, I will email the OP shortly. But I certainly do not want you to read anymore of my advice.
----------
This thread has lost any form of privacy thanks to someone bright spark giving the other party the link to this thread (I think we all know who it is). It is the pointless going to court if the other party anticipates your every move. From here onwards, my advice to the OP will be by email only.
I know a lot of people are interested in this thread (including Mr Green's side), but if I continue to post advice in this thread, we are just jeopardising the OP's case. We all want the OP to win, so let's not ruin his chances.
Man of Honour
bigjohn said:
Not only did the parcel contain an invoice with hypers details, his address would also have been on the sender sticker. Therefore I find it hard to belive anyone could use the "Well I didnt know where it came from excuse" a quick phone call to the number which would have been printed on the invoice would have solved all this
Benjarghmin said:
but not everyone can do this kind of thing..thats the whole point...This doesnt happen very often because, oddly enough, most people in this country are not scumbags and who have no problem popping something back in the post when its obvious that it wasnt meant for them.
Balddog said:
Well, you're entitled to view it how you like. I'd hardly call someone scum just because they got confused over a £120 graphics card. (Assuming he got confused, and isn't just stealing it, in which case yes he is scum.)
Soldato
Benjarghmin said:
How did he get confused exactly?
- Status